Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.
No, no, no... this is where all the knee-jerk rally-behind-InterTrust Tech comments happen. It's David vs. Golliath! C'mon, mang! Big evil Microsoft, etc. etc.... get with the program!
Posted on Saturday, July 19 @ 09:20:28 EDT by staff
Red Hat, the leading American distributor of Linux, is abandoning the retail channel, the company is expected to announce Monday.
The company's next major release, codenamed "Cambridge," will not be provided in boxed, retail form, according to company communications with employees and developers, which have been made available to Linux and Main.
Additionally, Red Hat plans extensive changes in its development and distribution model. The changes will begin with development lists being made public, and will be followed by return of package maintanence to the developers themselves. Currently, packages are "handed over" to Red Hat developers, who then tune them for inclusion in a particular version. Under the new system, developers will maintain control of the packages.
The company hopes that the changes help to overcome the long lead time needed to produce boxed sets. With a six-month release cycle, and with the rapid pace of Linux development, many packages shipped on CD are obsolete before they ever reach retail shelves.
The reorganization will take place following the release of "Cambridge," scheduled for this autumn.
Details of the new development and distribution model are expected to be announced Monday. The company says it plans to offer developers maximum freedom in deciding what is included in Red Hat Linux without Red Hat itself losing control of the distribution.
Formed in 1995, Red Hat Software has become the most widely used Linux distribution among enterprises in North America. It has concentrated in recent years on enterprise server rooms, training, and distribution by subscription.
Red Hat was probably hemorrhaging cash in the consumer retail arena... so rather than continue to fight a loosing battle, they're regrouping and doing what works for them.
It's a novel conect in the IT economy.... focus on what actually makes your company money, and dump what you loose money on. Red Hat isn't a Microsoft... they don't have the capital to piss away to maintain market share. They *need* to focus on what makes money.
Actually, yes. Shorten, the previous lossless codec they were using, has a funky EULA that restricted certain commercial usage. FLAC, on the other hand, is free as in speech, free as in beer, and unencumbered by any known patent restrictions.
> Did they switch for technical reasons? No.
Actually, yes. FLAC compresses files 3-5% smaller than Shorten. That means less storage space, and less bandwidth used. This means they save money, thus boosting their bottom line.
> Did they switch for political reasons? No.
Actually, yes. FLAC is more in line with the ideals of the Green Party.;)
Wrong. You can donate to the EFF. You can purchase music or otherwise support artists on CD Baby, an "online record store that sells CDs by independent musicians" (not distributors). There's pleny of things you can do to thwart the efforts of the RIAA mafia.
Of course, we all know that the major record labels aren't sweating about a few kids downloading some free music instead of paying for the pricefixed CD. They are really scared to death of artists realizing that they no longer need the services of the majors to earn a living. They see the impending end of their mass-distribution monopoly.
For music, the Internet is all about ease-of-mass-distribution! Every day, more people are overcoming the techsavvy hurdle. As more people become comfortable with the rip/mix/burn mantra, they won't think twice about forking $5 at an artist's website for an non-crippled MP3 or FLAC download of a whole album. They will download the files with the understanding that they can listen wherever, however and whenever. They can listen on their MP3 player of choice, or burn it to CD... the point is, the power is back in the hands of the artist and consumer.... but leaves old MCA to die a slow death. And they'll fight it to the very end, as their very existance depends on pushing digital rights management (DRM). Most artists don't want DRM, but the record labels are telling them they need it to hedge filesharing. Microsoft is pushing DRM because it will drum up good buisness for DRM tools.
This is also known as guilty until proven innocent, for those of us that may show up as a false-positive on the illegal P2P scale.
Even more interesting, as mentioned in the News.com article, is a related story from yesterday morning that I missed. It seems the Republicans are getting it right... or at least are trying to. Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is seeking to regulate how digital rights management (DRM) is incorporated into consumer products. Also, the proposed bill would require that a copyright holder gets permission from a judge before receiving the name of any alleged illegal P2P user.
Of course, DRM goes against everything I believe in, but any kind of regulation of how this technology is deployed is a step in the right direction. Allowing the marketplace to intelligently decide what amount (if any) of copy protection is reasonable is a Good Thing.
user: wtf? are you nuts. aren't our win2k servers the ones that all went down because of that mimlinda, in lisa and melissa and code red,.. is there anything else that will let me use ms office and its nifty features such a schedule sharing and such.
Back that anti-M$/. train up.... Don't get me wrong; I hate M$ as much as the next geek, but Exchange is the only solution (at the time) that fit my client's needs. Period. FWIW, my Exchange server never went offline because of any of the above exploits...
Hey d00d, were you doing *your* job as a diligant admin, to keep your client's Exchange box online? Sounds like we already have the answers. 20 minutes with Norton and a log parser would have found any liability... it sounds like you waited until your client called *you* about a down server, after it's much too late... of course, by that point, you already looked like the lame Exchange wannabe you are.... but it's always much easier to blame M$ and Exchange for this, right?
Most admins have upgraded from the nightmare of 5.5 to the misery of 2k... as long as a geek-frindly solution is nine months behind the curve, what will the excuse be when they perminantly 404? I've yet to see a timely Exchange killah...
Please, I (and the 15 clients I consult) would *love* to have an alternative.... oh yeah, the first person that says sendmail I'll go Malvo on...
Slashdot Mirror
Here come all the knee-jerk rally-behind-Microsoft comments.
No, no, no... this is where all the knee-jerk rally-behind-InterTrust Tech comments happen. It's David vs. Golliath! C'mon, mang! Big evil Microsoft, etc. etc.... get with the program!
Clownface? ;)
I always love it when a sarcastic comment gets modded "Informative" :)
Yup... I almost trust Iomega, too!
Yes, we don't have a clear winner... but we do have a clear loser :)
...but the Sony DRU-500AX burns 4x DVD-R/-RW, DVD+RW/+R... clearly, this is the most compatible burner! :)
"The bad: No Mac support." Opps, nevermind.
I thought BitTorrent was the leading distributor, period.
>-~
Red Hat to abandon retail channel
Posted on Saturday, July 19 @ 09:20:28 EDT by staff
Red Hat, the leading American distributor of Linux, is abandoning the retail channel, the company is expected to announce Monday.
The company's next major release, codenamed "Cambridge," will not be provided in boxed, retail form, according to company communications with employees and developers, which have been made available to Linux and Main.
Additionally, Red Hat plans extensive changes in its development and distribution model. The changes will begin with development lists being made public, and will be followed by return of package maintanence to the developers themselves. Currently, packages are "handed over" to Red Hat developers, who then tune them for inclusion in a particular version. Under the new system, developers will maintain control of the packages.
The company hopes that the changes help to overcome the long lead time needed to produce boxed sets. With a six-month release cycle, and with the rapid pace of Linux development, many packages shipped on CD are obsolete before they ever reach retail shelves.
The reorganization will take place following the release of "Cambridge," scheduled for this autumn.
Details of the new development and distribution model are expected to be announced Monday. The company says it plans to offer developers maximum freedom in deciding what is included in Red Hat Linux without Red Hat itself losing control of the distribution.
Formed in 1995, Red Hat Software has become the most widely used Linux distribution among enterprises in North America. It has concentrated in recent years on enterprise server rooms, training, and distribution by subscription.
Red Hat was probably hemorrhaging cash in the consumer retail arena... so rather than continue to fight a loosing battle, they're regrouping and doing what works for them.
It's a novel conect in the IT economy.... focus on what actually makes your company money, and dump what you loose money on. Red Hat isn't a Microsoft... they don't have the capital to piss away to maintain market share. They *need* to focus on what makes money.
> Did they switch for legal reasons? No.
;)
Actually, yes. Shorten, the previous lossless codec they were using, has a funky EULA that restricted certain commercial usage. FLAC, on the other hand, is free as in speech, free as in beer, and unencumbered by any known patent restrictions.
> Did they switch for technical reasons? No.
Actually, yes. FLAC compresses files 3-5% smaller than Shorten. That means less storage space, and less bandwidth used. This means they save money, thus boosting their bottom line.
> Did they switch for political reasons? No.
Actually, yes. FLAC is more in line with the ideals of the Green Party.
FLAC
> The only thing I can do is stop buying music
Wrong. You can donate to the EFF. You can purchase music or otherwise support artists on CD Baby, an "online record store that sells CDs by independent musicians" (not distributors). There's pleny of things you can do to thwart the efforts of the RIAA mafia.
Of course, we all know that the major record labels aren't sweating about a few kids downloading some free music instead of paying for the pricefixed CD. They are really scared to death of artists realizing that they no longer need the services of the majors to earn a living. They see the impending end of their mass-distribution monopoly.
For music, the Internet is all about ease-of-mass-distribution! Every day, more people are overcoming the techsavvy hurdle. As more people become comfortable with the rip/mix/burn mantra, they won't think twice about forking $5 at an artist's website for an non-crippled MP3 or FLAC download of a whole album. They will download the files with the understanding that they can listen wherever, however and whenever. They can listen on their MP3 player of choice, or burn it to CD... the point is, the power is back in the hands of the artist and consumer.... but leaves old MCA to die a slow death. And they'll fight it to the very end, as their very existance depends on pushing digital rights management (DRM). Most artists don't want DRM, but the record labels are telling them they need it to hedge filesharing. Microsoft is pushing DRM because it will drum up good buisness for DRM tools.
This is also known as guilty until proven innocent, for those of us that may show up as a false-positive on the illegal P2P scale.
Even more interesting, as mentioned in the News.com article, is a related story from yesterday morning that I missed. It seems the Republicans are getting it right... or at least are trying to. Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is seeking to regulate how digital rights management (DRM) is incorporated into consumer products. Also, the proposed bill would require that a copyright holder gets permission from a judge before receiving the name of any alleged illegal P2P user.
Of course, DRM goes against everything I believe in, but any kind of regulation of how this technology is deployed is a step in the right direction. Allowing the marketplace to intelligently decide what amount (if any) of copy protection is reasonable is a Good Thing.
user: wtf? are you nuts. aren't our win2k servers the ones that all went down because of that mimlinda, in lisa and melissa and code red, .. is there anything else that will let me use ms office and its nifty features such a schedule sharing and such.
/. train up.... Don't get me wrong; I hate M$ as much as the next geek, but Exchange is the only solution (at the time) that fit my client's needs. Period. FWIW, my Exchange server never went offline because of any of the above exploits...
Back that anti-M$
Hey d00d, were you doing *your* job as a diligant admin, to keep your client's Exchange box online? Sounds like we already have the answers. 20 minutes with Norton and a log parser would have found any liability... it sounds like you waited until your client called *you* about a down server, after it's much too late... of course, by that point, you already looked like the lame Exchange wannabe you are.... but it's always much easier to blame M$ and Exchange for this, right?
It seems....
Too little, too late.
Most admins have upgraded from the nightmare of 5.5 to the misery of 2k... as long as a geek-frindly solution is nine months behind the curve, what will the excuse be when they perminantly 404? I've yet to see a timely Exchange killah...
Please, I (and the 15 clients I consult) would *love* to have an alternative.... oh yeah, the first person that says sendmail I'll go Malvo on...